I heard on radio this morning, a Judge has concluded his pre-sentence summation, and the sentence itself upon another of society's miscreants. The only trouble being, I'm sure when everyone hears details of crime and the sentence applied for that crime, there'll be howls of disapproval at the apparent leniency by yet another seemingly 'out of touch' Judge ?

We are told by our politicians that the judiciary are wholly independent, and should remain so, for the exclusive (fair) dispensation of justice in our community. There are processes in place that can remove a judge for serious misconduct, otherwise they have the job for life, together with an attractive salary with benefits.

So who are these bewigged, colourfully gowned men and women ? To us mere mortals, they're God like, indefatigably and assiduously righteous in their quest, for the precise dispensation of justice, and fairness for all ?

Or are they, as many now tend to view them, completely out of touch with the community's expectations of appropriate justice ? Too aloof and remote, academically arrogant, and way to parochial and protected by government(s)?

What do you think ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

The following two links may help:

http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheet/separation-of-powers.html

And -

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/odgers/chap20

Yes Foxy, & it is that very "security of tenure" that is the problem.

The whole system is controlled by the lawyers, & anyone who trusts a lawyer is a bloody idiot.

This I believe is o sung wus cause for complaint. The judges are a law unto themselves, & show absolutely no interest in the standards of correction the public want. We continually get criminals, like rapists, back out on the street to reoffend, either on bail, or after all too lenient sentences, shortened to the ridiculous by parole boards.

We need to make judges & magistrates answerable to the people who pay their salaries. The only way this is likely to happen is for us to elect our judges, on at least no more than 6 year terms.

When they are likely to be thrown out if their sentencing does not meet community expectations, we may find them a little more responsive to the real world, a place they have very little connection to today.

Dear Hasbeen,

Bloody ridiculous and un-Australian mate.

This is the kind of thing that happens when you elect judges and force them to spend tens of thousands of dollars on election campaigns;

Quote;

(Reuters) - A former Pennsylvania juvenile court judge was sentenced on Thursday to 28 years in prison for accepting payment to send juveniles to a for-profit detention facility in a scandal dubbed "kids for cash,".

Former Luzerne County Juvenile Court Judge Mark Ciavarella, 61, accepted nearly $1 million from a developer who built the detention facility, prosecutors said.

Under the "kids for cash" scheme, thousands of juveniles were shipped to the private center on minor or questionable charges by Ciavarella and another former judge, Michael Conahan, according to juvenile advocates.

"Mr. Ciavarella abused his position of trust and inflicted a deep and lasting wound on the community he vowed to service," U.S. Attorney Peter Smith said following the sentencing.

End quote.

If this is the system you think you would enjoy perhaps you might consider moving.

Correct, SteeleRedux.

The electing of judges in America has proven to be a complete disaster. Justice is effectively for sale there.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/voting-for-judges-in-the-usa/3397394#transcript ("show transcript" needs to be clicked)

Making judges choose between doing their job and bowing to the demands of angry mobs with their pitchforks and torches, who have no idea about the specifics of a case or the ramifications of more punitive sentencing, is always going to end badly. Numerous studies show that when presented with the same facts, members of the general public estimate sentences more lenient than what judges handed down in real life. This is partly because judges are bowing to the pressures of the general public but can only do so to a certain extent before they are no longer doing their job in (ironically) serving the public.

There is a reason why those with their pitchforks and torches are largely being ignored by judges and lawmakers and it's not because judges and lawmakers are out-of-touch. Serving the public does not mean giving them everything they want. Especially when it can be demonstrated through decades of research that what they want will not provide them with the result they think it will (e.g. greater protection, restitution, social harmony).

Dear o sung wu,

If we had a chance to choose between good and bad the choice would be easy. We rarely get that choice. Generally what we get is the chance to choose the least bad. I think that's what we have in our judiciary.

Judges may be out of touch. That may sometimes be a good thing. They may be free from the prejudices of the day stirred up by the Murdoch press.

People may think the judge is too lenient. However, he or she has heard all the testimony, and the judge's critics haven't. I was a juror in a murder trial and found the defendant guilty as did eleven other jurors. I felt I might have committed the murder had I been in the defendant's place. I don't know the sentence, but I hope the judge was lenient.

Judges may be called unaccountable. In Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia judges were completely accountable to the state and had to do the bidding of the state. An independent judiciary is still accountable. They are accountable to the law, and their decision may be upset if it is judged by another court that it was not in accordance with law.

Judges may not be aware of the problems of the common people. That is true. The way to deal with that is to make it possible for anybody with the ability to become a judge to have access to education so judges might be more representative of the general population. The current government wants to deregulate university fees which would make it more difficult for all but the rich to get an education. To get more aware judges make it possible for those with the ability but without the money to become a judge.

Hi there folks...

While I generally agree with the overt pragmatism of HASBEEN in many of his arguments and opinions, on this specific issue 'that we elect our judiciary', is not a view that I'd share with him ?

I acknowledge it's the individual presiding on the bench who's completely appraised of ALL the facts in evidence, and as such it's within his or her purview alone, to determine the relative 'weight' those facts in issue are given, during the sentencing stage ?

I acknowledge most criminal process, is subject to appeal. Particularly if it's found the presiding judge has erred in law; or his sentencing preamble has placed insufficient 'weight' on matters that are present in evidence; including other material that might prove inculpatory but NOT presented in evidence; or he'd failed to scrupulously adhere to usual sentencing precedent. There are other areas in procedure, that a presiding justice might get wrong, subsequently might well be appealed.

Further I accept all strata of the judiciary have a tough gig ? That said, surely there comes a time when there is sufficient public disquiet, to moderate their usual sentencing protocols, and step up to the plate, and in some measure, try to meet the community's expectations ?

As a working detective almost right up until I retired, I cannot emphasize enough, how damned demoralized you get, when you and your squad members put hundreds of hours (often unpaid) into a good brief of evidence. Though a conviction might never be in question, the punishment just doesn't go anywhere near fitting the crime ? Just the look on a victims face, does make you question whether it's worth all the time and (personal) energy you put into it ?

Hi there DAVID F...

I'm sorry to have been so slow in responding to your thread, but as you can see, I've been overcome with the many responses I've received on this topic ? Perhaps therein lies a message ?

I agree with much of what you've said, the judiciary must remain independent from any other influences whatsoever, in order they may dispense justice fairly, and without any political intrusion or influence, from any quarter.

I will say something that I have observed, concerning whispers of political interference even meddling with members of the judiciary ? During the last 15,20 years or so, I've noticed many of those presiding in our lower courts (the Magistracy), seem to have a much greater reluctance to incarcerate an individual if it's at all possible ?

(Unfortunately, once the media gets wind of any irregularity, and the circumstances for NOT gaoling someone is very compelling, well justice becomes just another circus?)

Anyway, due in part to some subtle reminders that are quietly given to the Chief Magistrate, concerning the spiralling costs associated with imprisoning someone, rather than first examining other punitive measures initially ? One doesn't need a PhD in political skulduggery, to appreciate who exactly gives the CM the 'heads up', other than some influential politician ? Personally I don't have a (particular) problem with that DAVID F ? After all our correctional responsibilities need to include sound fiscal management as well. Nothing wrong with a well-timed reminder is it ?

My only reservation being, advising the Chief 'beak' of some fiscal imperative, is just a very short step away, from attempting to influence a member of the judiciary, in other less acceptable ways ?

Anyway DAVID F, I believe you and I are 'basically' on the same page here, if not we're nevertheless pretty close ?

Dear o sung wu,

I agree. Justice should always be done. Unfortunately, it isn't always either in the government or in the private sector. A few years ago in the United States Sears and Roebuck, selling through mail order and retail outlets, was plagued by employee pilfering. After a study it was found that the cost of the security system which would prevent employee pilfering was greater than the amount pilfered. To do nothing was cheaper. In effect the honest employees continued to get less than the thieves.

To be realistic justice is never free of cost, and we're not always willing to pay it.

Hi (again) DAVID F...

You're so right, we would all like to believe in this somewhat esoteric ideal, that in a developed nation such as ours, justice is available and accessible to us all ? A magnificent concept in theory, but far from the truth unfortunately ?

In this grand State of ours NSW, many hours are wasted while we all loiter in and around outside Court, while waiting to be summoned to give our evidence. Naturally while many people are loosely assembled in and about the public areas and it's environs, you tend to over hear the low murmurs of a dozen conversations going on, most remonstrating about how expensive it is for legal representation.

Police are lucky ? In each Court House there's this diminutive (suffocating) little room, for the benefit of police to quietly review their 'evidence in chief'. Stencilled on the door to this room, are the words 'Police Only' can be seen. Lets face it, no living thing, would ever seek to venture (willingly) through that door once they'd seen what lay beyond ! Imagine if you will, half a dozen large coppers all trying to move around in a room so tiny, that it would probably designated 'too small' as an official phone box ? The State's police are well cared for, in NSW Court Houses ?

Back to the topic though, initially you first need to seek out a solicitor, one dealing in criminal procedures, he in turn recommends and briefs a barrister to represent you in court. All the while, the old 'cash register' ringing away happily, ever couple of minutes or so ! Both Barrister's and his instructing solicitor cost plenty, in any civil or criminal matter being defended !

This notion of justice for all, is all well and good, provided of course you can pay for it ? Oh you're so right DAVID F, quality justice is strictly within the dominion of the wealthy, not for your average working Joe ? And getting assistance from the public solicitor, does work provided you meet their strict 'means testing' ?

o sung wu,

No doubt you remember Judge Camron-Smith and other of his ilk in the "Quarter Sessions".
There wasn't a crim in Sydney that didn't crap themselves when they fronted for repeat offenses especially where the "Key" (Habitual Criminals Act) was mentioned.
God I loved that Act. The moment you mentioned it the crims confessed to dozens on the 'back of the sheet'

G'day there CHRISGAFF1000...

Always good to hear from you mate ! The old 'Quarter Sessions', you'd remember the presiding Judge was not known by the appellation 'Judge', rather they were referred to as the 'Chairman of Quarter Sessions' ! Go figure ? Your memory is amazing Chris, I honestly don't remember him by that name, unless he's the bloke they often referred to somewhat affectionately as, old Judge 'Two Fathers' ?

The Key, who'd forget it ! Once a crook got declared by the Court as an 'Habitual Criminal' it had a great impact upon his remission while in boob. Further his parole was much much tougher to obtain, plus other judicial (punitive) impositions were applied.

Extraordinarily, once a crook got 'the Key' many lesser crims, treated it as a 'badge of honour' ! Sure it is ?? Being declared, a 'habitual loser', is a badge of honour, go figure ??

Another silly admin. decision which many of us greatly lamented, was the disbandment of the Consorting Squad, consequently the repeal of the Act ? Another useful tool for detectives to legitimately stir 'em up, whenever the mood took them !

Chris, I'm very glad I'm out, I don't think I could survive in the job now, with all the PC and other entrapment strategies that are carefully set, for some poor unwitting copper trying to do his job ? I'm not the only one who shares this view, you'd be of a similar mind I'd bet ?

http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/p/policemanssong.shtml

POLICEMAN'S SONG
From the Gilbert & Sullivan opera "Pirates of Penzance" (1879) (*)
(William Schwenk Gilbert / Sir Arthur Sullivan)

WHEN A FELON'S NOT ENGAGED IN HIS EMPLOYMENT (his employment)
OR MATURING HIS FELONIOUS LITTLE PLANS (little plans)
HIS CAPACITY FOR INNOCENT ENJOYMENT (-cent enjoyment)
IS JUST AS GREAT AS ANY HONEST MAN'S (honest mans)

OUR FEELINGS WE WITH DIFFICULTY SMOTHER (-culty smother)
WHEN CONSTABULARY DUTY'S TO BE DONE (to be done)
AH, TAKE ONE CONSIDERATION WITH ANOTHER (with another)
A POLICEMAN'S LOT IS NOT A HAPPY ONE

AHHH
WHEN CONSTABULARY DUTY'S TO BE DONE, TO BE DONE,
A POLICEMAN'S LOT IS NOT A HAPPY ONE.

WHEN THE ENTERPRISING BURGLARS NOT A'BURGLING (not a'burgling)
WHEN THE CUT THROAT ISN'T OCCUPIED IN CRIME (-pied in crime)
HE LOVES TO HEAR THE LITTLE BROOK A'GURGLING (brook a'gurgling)
AND LISTEN TO THE MERRY VILLAGE CHIME (village chime)

WHEN THE COSTER'S FINISHED JUMPING ON HIS MOTHER (on his mother)
HE LOVES TO LIE A'BASKING IN THE SUN (in the sun)
AH, TAKE ONE CONSIDERATION WITH ANOTHER (with another)
A POLICEMAN'S LOT IS NOT A HAPPY ONE

AHHH
WHEN CONSTABULARY DUTY'S TO BE DONE, TO BE DONE,
A POLICEMAN'S LOT IS NOT A HAPPY ONE (happy one).

Thank you DAVID F, I love it ! The reprise '...a policeman's lot is not a happy one...' ? Never a truer word uttered DAVID F .

I just wondered why it was that Mr SULLIVAN received a Knighthood, and Mr GILBERT, not ?

SteeleRedux, A J Phillips and david f, Excellent justification of the status quo, Thanks. Look at the politicians we get by choosing them with a popularity poll...surely that is enough evidence to make one shudder at the notion of an elected judiciary.